The BCCI has supposedly “questioned the integrity” of Munaf Patel in the aftermath of his selection for the Cape Town Test and his not doing well (this, despite the fact that the semi-fit Munaf bowled 20 overs for under 2.5 runs per over in the first innings, contributing in large part to the Indian lead). On the face of it, this is a serious matter and deserves decisive handling – either Munaf Patel has been unfairly blamed and deserves an apology as public as Mr Shah’s allegation, or Mr. Shah is absolutely right in his suggestion, and Munaf needs to be disciplined at the very least, or more realistically dropped for good.
Sadly, in the disastrous world of cricket reporting in India, made up of amateurish, off-the-cuff BCCI statements (any office bearer of the BCCI deems himself to be the self-appointed spokesman for the institution), and parasitical reporting (where opinion and analysis is deemed necessary only when the reporting is not deemed juicy enough), the one thing missing, is a genuine regard for Cricket or Cricketer.
Just think about the BCCI statement on Munaf Patel. I quote Niranjan Shah here : “Here I am a little concerned about the player himself. The player himself should be honest enough about his own fitness. The last 5% has to come from the player. The doctor cannot say how much pain you are experiencing. Many players can play even with a big injury but some players cannot play even with a small injury. The honesty of the player – at least in the case of Munaf Patel – is in question.”
Really? The “honesty” of the player is in question, because the evidence shows that Munaf Patel at worst made a mistake in judging his own fitness, even though every doctor consulted said he was fit? And if Munaf had not declared himself fit, inspite of the doctors declaring him to be medically fit, then his honesty would have been in question as well – because he would then have been accused of chickening out and not earning his money.
How can Munaf Patel’s honesty be in question here? In Niranjan Shah’s defense though, i will say that this is not what he intended to say in the first place. He probably thinks in Gujarati and speaks in English, like most of us Indians do – think in our mother tongues and speak in English. This disconnect is well-known to have caused some of the more humorous moments in the saga of Indias English speaking prowess.
The Cricinfo story is even more bizarre. They quote Anant Joshi who’s comment as i read it says the following:
1. Munaf Patel is medically fit.
2. He recieved top class treatment.
3. He is unsure about his fitness in his own mind.
4. He has subsequently been advised R&R.
How does this amount to Dr. Anant Joshi “not sparing” Munaf Patel?
Rahul Dravid didn’t make runs and the selectors have come down hard on him. Batting failures were the cause of the Indian defeat, and it is natural that the best batsmen should face the brunt of the blame. All this can be done constructively, with out launching against the integrity or the commitment of the player/s in question. Instead, all that we find here, is that integrity and commitment is all that is being questioned, both by BCCI and the press (all though i must say that some press reports, which have not addressed the BCCI part of the story, but have been essentially match reports and series summaries have been quite good about this).
The only thing that comes into question here is the integrity and commitment of the BCCI. The following specific questions can be asked:
1. What is the BCCI protocol when it comes to making the position of the Board known on cricket team selection and performance issues?
2. Was this protocol (assuming it exists, and assuming that it will be laid out in response to question 1) followed during and after the South Africa series?
3. If not, where did it fall apart, why, and who was responsible for the breach?
4. What is the Boards perspective on this tour?
5. If BCCI does not interfere with selection committee matters, then why did the Board recommend Munaf Patel returning along with Irfan Pathan, when this was clearly not the position of the team management?
6. What should Munaf Patel make of this whole thing? As someone who has faced serious injury early in his career, should he expect support from his employers? Can he expect clarity?
7. What is the BCCI’s position on the use of the English language? The Secretary is clearly limited in this regard, and Munaf Patel, who is not entirely fluent in English, must not have understood what the secretary intended to say about him. Will BCCI come clean on Munaf Patel? Are they interested in his services for India? Or are they keen on forgetting about him, because Niranjan Shah does not trust him? If Munaf Patel decides to question BCCI about their comments with regard to his participation in the Cape Town test, what will their answer be?
Could we please have some answers?
Kartikeyadate's Weblog 